Schinlders Stoop Low - Again

[Outshined]

Originally posted by JRodan@Apr 1 2005, 09:33 AM

I blame Sierra November Oscar Whiskey for this. Some pots should not be stirred with such vigor.

Yes, the whole Schiavo affair is Snow's fault...

[Guest JRodan]

Originally posted by Outshined+Apr 1 2005, 01:27 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Outshined @ Apr 1 2005, 01:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--JRodan@Apr 1 2005, 09:33 AM

I blame Sierra November Oscar Whiskey for this.  Some pots should not be stirred with such vigor.

Yes, the whole Schiavo affair is Snow's fault...

Careful soldier, you might make an a$$ out of u and me.

[Outshined]

You don't think I'd be a bit late for that one (at least on your part)?

As someone said, if you don't like the threads, don't read 'em...

[StrawberryFields]

Originally posted by Jenda+Apr 1 2005, 12:56 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Apr 1 2005, 12:56 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Strawberry Fields@Apr 1 2005, 08:54 AM

<!--QuoteBegin--JRodan@Apr 1 2005, 09:33 AM

I blame Sierra November Oscar Whiskey for this.  Some pots should not be stirred with such vigor.

Dare I ask what this means?

I blame S... N... O... W... for this.

Oh O.K.

[Guest JRodan]

You don't think I'd be a bit late for that one (at least on your part)?

Ho, ho, ho, ha, ha, ha, ho... Boy-o-boy you got me good there. Nice shot! Is anyone else laughing at me as hard as I am?

As someone said, if you don't like the threads, don't read 'em...

Who said anything about not liking them? Are you assuming I only read the threads I don't like?

[Outshined]

Originally posted by JRodan@Apr 1 2005, 03:36 PM

Who said anything about not liking them? Are you assuming I only read the threads I don't like?

My mistake; the constant complaints are a sign that you like them, then? Sort of like "bad" can mean good?

[Guest JRodan]

Originally posted by Outshined@Apr 1 2005, 04:45 PM

... the constant complaints are a sign that you like them, then?...

LIKE them? Why, I LOVE them! Nothing strokes my self-image, self-worth and enhances my self-esteem more than reading the imbecilic rants of other humanoids.

[srm]

Originally posted by Amillia+Apr 1 2005, 08:36 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Amillia @ Apr 1 2005, 08:36 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Strawberry Fields@Apr 1 2005, 07:10 AM

Still? Why would Michael use the money meant for Terri's rehab to pay his high powered, right to death attorney, to kill her? I know there will be the Michael supporters that will say that that is what Terri wanted but, his actions have placed much doubt on that.

Why did he wait until he had her rehab money in the bank before he brought that up?

Sure he was the dutiful husband until he had that money and then he remembered that she wanted to die.

To my knowledge, the people who recall Terri's dying wishes have the last name of Shiavo and Terri was unable to speak for herself.

Michael has been fighting to have Terri's wishes granted ever since he has received that money.

One can only second guess why the Schindlers made this decision given the state they were in. Hopefully the reason will emerge soon and the speculation will cease.

I think the husband had the right to get a lawyer if he was the responsible party. Which he was. He was doing what he felt he should do and used the means to take care of Terri with that money even if it meant taking care of her by releasing her from that dispicable shell of a body.

I see no compromise in ethics to use the money for Terri's care here. It was for benefiting her the best way he could.

When Michael sued he requested money for her care for the rest of her life...he claimed it was about 50 years. once the money arrived...within months he stopped therapy, gave a dnr order and when she got an infection that he knew could be fatal he refused antibiotics. That 50 years changed to months.

In speaking to a lover he told her (according to her testimony) that he didn't know what she wanted.

100s of thousands of dollars earmarked for her care were spent on lawyers trying to kill her.

When questioned in a deposition about why he would not allow the parents to care for her he replied.

After the hell they (the parents) put me through...

then after a lawyer whispered into his ear he said...oh and also it is what terri wants.

[StrawberryFields]

Originally posted by srm+Apr 2 2005, 12:16 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (srm @ Apr 2 2005, 12:16 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Amillia@Apr 1 2005, 08:36 AM

<!--QuoteBegin--Strawberry Fields@Apr 1 2005, 07:10 AM

Still? Why would Michael use the money meant for Terri's rehab to pay his high powered, right to death attorney, to kill her? I know there will be the Michael supporters that will say that that is what Terri wanted but, his actions have placed much doubt on that.

Why did he wait until he had her rehab money in the bank before he brought that up?

Sure he was the dutiful husband until he had that money and then he remembered that she wanted to die.

To my knowledge, the people who recall Terri's dying wishes have the last name of Shiavo and Terri was unable to speak for herself.

Michael has been fighting to have Terri's wishes granted ever since he has received that money.

One can only second guess why the Schindlers made this decision given the state they were in. Hopefully the reason will emerge soon and the speculation will cease.

I think the husband had the right to get a lawyer if he was the responsible party. Which he was. He was doing what he felt he should do and used the means to take care of Terri with that money even if it meant taking care of her by releasing her from that dispicable shell of a body.

I see no compromise in ethics to use the money for Terri's care here. It was for benefiting her the best way he could.

When Michael sued he requested money for her care for the rest of her life...he claimed it was about 50 years. once the money arrived...within months he stopped therapy, gave a dnr order and when she got an infection that he knew could be fatal he refused antibiotics. That 50 years changed to months.

In speaking to a lover he told her (according to her testimony) that he didn't know what she wanted.

100s of thousands of dollars earmarked for her care were spent on lawyers trying to kill her.

When questioned in a deposition about why he would not allow the parents to care for her he replied.

After the hell they (the parents) put me through...

then after a lawyer whispered into his ear he said...oh and also it is what terri wants.

That is right srm, where have you been.

[Outshined]

Originally posted by JRodan@Apr 2 2005, 07:32 AM

Nothing strokes my self-image, self-worth and enhances my self-esteem more than reading the imbecilic rants of other humanoids.

Well I'm glad to see you're comfortable in adding your own...

[Cal]

Originally posted by Amillia+Apr 1 2005, 08:36 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Amillia @ Apr 1 2005, 08:36 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Strawberry Fields@Apr 1 2005, 07:10 AM

Still? Why would Michael use the money meant for Terri's rehab to pay his high powered, right to death attorney, to kill her? I know there will be the Michael supporters that will say that that is what Terri wanted but, his actions have placed much doubt on that.

Why did he wait until he had her rehab money in the bank before he brought that up?

Sure he was the dutiful husband until he had that money and then he remembered that she wanted to die.

To my knowledge, the people who recall Terri's dying wishes have the last name of Shiavo and Terri was unable to speak for herself.

Michael has been fighting to have Terri's wishes granted ever since he has received that money.

One can only second guess why the Schindlers made this decision given the state they were in. Hopefully the reason will emerge soon and the speculation will cease.

I think the husband had the right to get a lawyer if he was the responsible party. Which he was. He was doing what he felt he should do and used the means to take care of Terri with that money even if it meant taking care of her by releasing her from that dispicable shell of a body.

I see no compromise in ethics to use the money for Terri's care here. It was for benefiting her the best way he could.

I find it ironic that some of the people in this country that most loudly proclaim the SANCTITY of marriage were the first to say that Michael, THE HUSBAND, should not have the right to enforce the wishes of his wife or be the one who determined what those wishes were. Apparently, the Court was convinced that Michael was telling the truth about his wifes wishes.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Cal,

We've actually touched on your point before (you've had the good fortune to sit out most of the interminable Schiavo discussions). The short version of my response was that when a man has taken up with another woman, there isn't much "sanctity" left in his marriage. I don't find any irony at all in the fact that some people don't think that respecting the sanctity of marriage compels them to take a position that a husband's rights over his wife include the power of deciding her life or death.

Michael Schiavo was Terri Schiavo's husband in name only. Respecting the sanctity of marriage means more than respecting the form; we look to the substance. The substance was that he had ceased to be her husband.

Apparently, the Court was convinced that Michael was telling the truth about his wifes wishes.

I read the court's transcript. It was pretty clear to me that the judge had a personal presumption that no one in her right mind would want to live in a PVS, and tailored his findings of fact accordingly, despite the fact that the law's presumption is actually in favor of continued medical treatment. (Judges letting their personal preferences influence their decisionmaking ... imagine that.)

[Cal]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Apr 6 2005, 01:05 PM

Cal,

We've actually touched on your point before (you've had the good fortune to sit out most of the interminable Schiavo discussions). The short version of my response was that when a man has taken up with another woman, there isn't much "sanctity" left in his marriage. I don't find any irony at all in the fact that some people don't think that respecting the sanctity of marriage compels them to take a position that a husband's rights over his wife include the power of deciding her life or death.

Michael Schiavo was Terri Schiavo's husband in name only. Respecting the sanctity of marriage means more than respecting the form; we look to the substance. The substance was that he had ceased to be her husband.

Apparently, the Court was convinced that Michael was telling the truth about his wifes wishes.

I read the court's transcript. It was pretty clear to me that the judge had a personal presumption that no one in her right mind would want to live in a PVS, and tailored his findings of fact accordingly, despite the fact that the law's presumption is actually in favor of continued medical treatment. (Judges letting their personal preferences influence their decisionmaking ... imagine that.)

Well, as far as the court decision is concerned, the judge did seem to err on the side of the marriage. Beside, if I remember right, at the time she went into unconciousness, they were husband and wife in the full sense, and it was during their time as husband and wife that she expressed the desire NOT to be kept alive by purely feeding her, otherwise, dead body (brain death as it were).

But, I don't want to rehash something already dealt with here. So you don't need to follow this up if you don't feel like it.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Cal,

Short response: Terri wasn't brain dead (a legal term); she was diagnosed in to be in a persistent vegetative state. From reading the transcripts, I thought the evidence based on which the court found that Terri would have wished to discontinue feeding was equivocal at best. The standard was supposed to be "clear and convincing evidence" -- the intermediate standard between preponderance and beyond reasonable doubt. I don't think the available evidence even came close to that level. This case was cast as a "right to die" case -- a case involving a person's right to decide to end medical treatment. I don't see it that way at all. The evidence is frankly incompetent to determine one way or the other what Terri's actual wishes were. The issue was more properly a question of who got to guess at what Terri's actual wishes would have been, had she expressed them clearly.

As for the Schiavo marriage, while it's true that Michael didn't take up with another woman until a good year (apparently) after his wife's brain injury, he had definitely moved on with his life by the time he changed his mind (from his previous position, expressed during his malpractice suit against Terri's doctor for failing to diagnose her alleged bulimia, that he intended to care for her for the remainder of her life) and started trying to cut off Terri's feeding. By the time his status as Terri's husband became a legal issue, in other words, it was nothing more than a formality.